Talk:History of cardistry

Why a separate article?
I understand that this article has been promoted to Good Article status— why isn't the entire article part of the article on cardistry to begin with? This seems like an unnecessary splitting of the cardistry article, and while I grant that many Wikipedia articles have a "history of..." article separate from their subject, I am not convinced of the practicality of such a split in this instance. The cardistry article even HAS a "history of" section which then links to this article— why not put it there to begin with? Length? I do not understand. KDS4444 (talk) 01:56, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, you have astutely observed that History of cardistry is linked in the Cardistry article.
 * They could be combined. There is a difference between the history and the craft.
 * The more relevant question is whether they should be merged/combined. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 02:01, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I strongly oppose merging the two! The history of the performance art is quite comprehensive, as clearly demonstrated. Many art forms have a "history of..." article and cardistry should have one too, IMO. Best, Doctor Papa Jones • (Click here to collect your prize!) 15:42, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, when it got the GA we should have posted it on WP:DYK. Which was a benefit of having a separate article.  Unfortunately, I was out of communication at the time, and missed the opportunity/deadline.  I regret that.  Sorry.  7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 17:26, 19 May 2016 (UTC)